Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 237,691
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Read more

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173433 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Your entire premise is flawed - simple dramatic reason - there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed outside of your holy guidebook. The same is true for Moses.
Your first mistake is assuming the Bible is one source when it is several sources compiled. Agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman put Jesus deniers in the same category as holocaust deniers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173434 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
History shows this?
According to the experts, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
''Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.[41]''

''Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[5][6][7][8] biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.[18][19][20''

You and others can be skeptical but most would go with the experts on this one.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173435 Aug 4, 2013
Wow lots of fan fiction here with zero historical backing. Lots of couldbes and maybes nothing factual in stone.

Just the facts.

Luke they are in a manger Matthew they are in a house. Fact.

Once again, for the sake of argument let's say Luke, who you confessed NEVER EVEN MET JESUS, uses terms more gentile friendly... That still does not excuse several errors and facts changed. Sorry it just doesn't. A Texas writer may for southerners add in a howdy instead of hello in a story that was being written at the same time by a New Yorker as a team effort ... But that wouldn't allow him to completely change important facts of the story!

This is just the birth narrative and they can't even get that straight! The gospels vary wildly from each other. Beyond a few basic plot lines they do not match up whatsoever. You are flailing and failing desperately on the birth errors so let's start you off on an easier one. Let me bring it down some as the birth errors are to complex for you. I did chuckle at your roman imperial comment and how strict they were but then you fail to see how Tacitus a Hellenistic worshipping roman imperial would be risking his life calling Jesus the messiah. Maybe one day that will sink in along with a practicing Jew like Josephus would never gush about Jesus the way his forged work claims.

As I said let's start you off with an easier one.

Why would they mention Joseph's family line of he wasn't the father of the child? It would be a fruitless endeavor and completely pointless. Moreover in Jewish tradition the birth line goes trough the father not the mother. But if Joseph wasn't the father than Jesus would have a failed bloodline for messiah consideration. If Joseph was the father, than Mary wasn't a virgin and the gospels lied.

Which is it?

:)
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>How in the hell do you come to all these ridiculous conclusions?

Now you're shifting goal posts saying the writers changed the gospels. Was that before or after they wrote them? Why are you so thick in the skull? You're using a straw man fallacy.

Luke didn't meet Jesus. That is true. But he did talk to people who did. And in writing history, that counts. When an author writes something down, it is written through the lens of his or her own cultural experience and perspective. Matthew was a Jewish male writing to other Jews. This is plainly evident by the way he opens his gospel narrative. He writes the geneology to illustrate what was most important to the Jews; that the Messiah is of the line of David. He follows that up with the visit from the magi from the east. Now while it says the Magi visited Jesus in a house. Luke is writing to an official in the Roman empire and is assuring this official that he (Luke) has taken the time to get the facts straight. Luke would obviously know that a Roman official was not somebody to lie to. Embarrassing a highly placed representative of imperial Rome is not a great way to verify one's status as a historian?
Imhotep

United States

#173436 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> According to the experts, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
''Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus.

You and others can be skeptical but most would go with the experts on this one.
Rubbish!

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Caesar by comparison is easily verified.

Here is a story very similar to your myth... ;)
And no... not an atheist site

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristiani...

1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

After you dwell on that - bear in mind this same myth - exists for the Egyptian god RA. It is believed by many that the Egyptian religion is the prototype for which all other religions evolved

http://youtube.com/watch...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173437 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish!
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Your problem is with the experts. Not with me. You are the one who says they are wrong as it relates to historical Jesus. What are your qualifications? I'M willing to give you and Liberty the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk your denial of historical Jesus up to stupidity or some sort of mental illness as opposed to sheer malice.
Imhotep

United States

#173438 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Your problem is with the experts. Not with me. You are the one who says they are wrong as it relates to historical Jesus. What are your qualifications? I'M willing to give you and Liberty the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk your denial of historical Jesus up to stupidity or some sort of mental illness as opposed to sheer malice.
Spare me your diagnosis, ;)

When evidence that he existed actually appears -goes worldwide - irrefutable evidence, that will require a rewrite of all history books... I'll change my mind and so will the rest of the world.

I have visited Luxor valley of the Kings in Egypt.
You take a tour and ask any tour guide about Moses you will not like what they say! There is simply no evidence of Moses in Egypt or anything attributed to his activities there.

If you have such evidence I believe you can astound the entire world. Especially the Egyptians!

The mental illness you referred to is your belief in immortality.

Your religion and others make no logical sense.
Religion does not unite people it divides them.
The fact that you rely on a apologist instead of your own brain is appalling.
How can you honestly say you've read the Bible and you believe every scrap it? That you read the OT? Or any other religious books?

Did you ever bother to compare your faith versus someone else's? Or even attempt to investigate the origins of it?

I say you suffer from a disease known as "religious dementia".

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173439 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Hearsay is a court standard and has little to do with investigation. You must be confused.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheo...

''So what sources do you use, then, to prove Jesus existed?

I look at everything that exists. There are not many references from pagan authors or from Jewish authors, but I do talk about those references that do exist and whether or not they are valuable.

Most of the sources that we have are Christian sources, which means they have to be taken with a handful of salt because they’re biased toward their subject matter. And most of them are decades after Jesus’ life.

But, what I show is that if you have a properly historical approach to, for example, the gospels of the New Testament, you realize fairly quickly that these are based on earlier written accounts, and that those earlier written accounts were based on oral tradition that go back even earlier. Some of these oral traditions make better sense when they’re translated back into Aramaic, Jesus’ own language—which means that even if the gospels are 30 to 40 years later, they’re based on sources that go back to very near the time of Jesus in Palestine. So, that’s one kind of source.

I look at the Apostle Paul. His writings were 20 years after Jesus’ life, but Paul himself converted to be a follower of Jesus within a year or two at the latest of Jesus’ death—which means that people were telling enough stories about Jesus for Paul to convert a year or two later.

All of that shows that the mythicists who claim that Jesus was made up 30 years later in Egypt, or some other claim—that simply can’t be right. We have evidence of people telling stories about Jesus in Palestine within a year or two of the traditional date of his death.''

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173440 Aug 4, 2013
On Noah Laws.

United States Congress

The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[27]

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173441 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Rubbish!
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.
Imhotep wrote:
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
And what do these dates have to do with historical writing? How is history recorded? Somebody either witnesses it and writes it down, or somebody talks to somebody who was there at a specific event or series of events and writes them down. They don't need to be contemporaries of the events. A perfect example is Bruce Catton and the American Civil War. Bruce Catton was born in 1899. The American Civil War ended in 1865. That's a thirty-four year gap, and yet Catton's books are still highly regarded as some of the best writing on the subject! How did Mr. Catton learn what he did about the American Civil War? He talked to veterans! What are veterans? People who have served in a military organization in the past.

"As a child living in a small town in Michigan, Catton was stimulated by the reminiscences of the Civil War that he heard from local veterans."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/100...
Imhotep wrote:
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Hearsay applies only in court cases where there is a risk of civil and/or criminal liability to the accused. That's the reason. It doesn't apply to history. All of history is "hearsay" if not witnessed by the recipient of the report. There are no photographs of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. We have photographs of Lincoln's funeral train and his coffin, but none of the act itself.

For those who will want to claim irrelevance or otherwise dismiss this, I'll amputate the legs right off that potential argument before you can even raise it:

It's relevant because the principles of ethical historical research are still the same for any event not witnessed by the writer, regardless of event, time period, etc.:)

I'll dissect your Mithras comparison in my next post. Not sure it will be today as we're expecting company for dinner. I'd invite you if you were closer.:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173442 Aug 4, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =T87JATb4sLcXX
It's always my game.
.....*sigh*....

... one of Roger Water's more haunting and lonely tunes, IMO

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173443 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, and early Christians believe Jesus resurrected.
Nope-- Jesus never even lived, let alone became a zombie.

Nope-- there is **zero** historical evidence of your Jesus' alleged crucifixion.

Yes-- deluded folk did believe in magic. So?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173444 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Basically what is being done here is demonizing opposition. Saying they are ignorant, ill educated, bigoted.
It's not bigoted-- if they **are** poorly educated, and are also **willfully**(by choice) ignorant.

So no.

Stating facts is not bigotry.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173445 Aug 4, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
The fact that you rely on a apologist instead of your own brain is appalling.
Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who leans towards atheism and is no apologist for the Christian faith. Even Muslim scholars do admit historical Jesus.



Sometimes ideas take time to percolate. Let it all float around in your head for a while and perhaps the light will come and you will realize your mistake.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173446 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Very well said! And you were kind enough not to point out that the Josephus and Tacitus lines about Jesus are clearly forgeries.
Even his so called followers didn't document him until decades later after Saul/Paul hallucinated about him... Or just made it up and wrote his epistles.
<quoted text>
Drunken sickness, after eating some tainted rye bread?

Or, perhaps, Saul/Paul was simply an epileptic? Or schizophrenic?

Back in those days, some cultures revered such folk-- believing them to have magical powers to see into the supernatural.

I could see any of those things, as having been the cause of Saul/Paul's wild and imaginary fiction.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173447 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Your first mistake is assuming the Bible is one source when it is several sources compiled.
That makes it **worse** silly!

The bible's very existence?

Constitutes AMPLE proof that there are NO GODS who CARE.

Why?

Due to all the EVIL that the bible is directly responsible for, of course!

Any god who CARED would have SEEN that-- and eliminated the evil bible BEFORE the evil could happen.

Since the bible DOES exist?

No gods who CARE can possibly exist!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173448 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> According to the experts, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
''Bart D. Ehrman
He's a godbot, plain and simple.

And cannot be trusted-- he has...

... an ...

....... agenda.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#173449 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
On Noah Laws.
United States Congress
The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[27]
Bull-exhaust

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173450 Aug 4, 2013
Provide a secular historian who met Jesus or was even an adult before he died.

Any year now.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Your problem is with the experts. Not with me. You are the one who says they are wrong as it relates to historical Jesus. What are your qualifications? I'M willing to give you and Liberty the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk your denial of historical Jesus up to stupidity or some sort of mental illness as opposed to sheer malice.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173451 Aug 4, 2013
We already know your apologetic excuse for the Jesus myth being stolen from Mithras. Let me save you the time... You will point out some slight variations in the two stories all the whole ignoring the vast similarities. Even early Christian apologetics confessed the two were similar and that what happened was... Satan knew Jesus was coming and how he was to come and so he centuries prior created and inspired these false sons of god messiah stories to confuse others later.

Even if you ignore the obvious forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus' work as honest apologetics will admit they were forged... But even if we forgive and forget the forgeries all you have is two guys decades later writing what Christians told them. That is no more proof than someone saying their grandfather saw a ghost and a news reporter printing that story as proof for ghosts.

Again the first person to write about Jesus was people you confessed never met him.... Then the gospels were dishonestly written with facts changed around for different audiences again by your admission, remember?:)
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Imhotep wrote, "All of these historians were born well after the alleged

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#173452 Aug 4, 2013
Islam didn't start until 6 centuries after Jesus was said to live and they just stole from the OT and the gospels. Bart in no way leans towards atheism he is the apologetic friendly agnostic as before he was a raving evangelical.

Even Bart points out how unreliable and error filled the gospels and NT are. Shall I post his comments on those errors?

Bart's argument for the existence for Jesus is that the stories in the NT are so ignorant and embarrassing that there just had to be a guy but the writers exaggerated his account.....
Cough..... Not very convincing if you ask me.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who leans towards atheism and is no apologist for the Christian faith. Even Muslim scholars do admit historical Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eV9JVEtDS8EXX

Sometimes ideas take time to percolate. Let it all float around in your head for a while and perhaps the light will come and you will realize your mistake.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Chimney1 18,450
News Confessions of a black atheist 37 min thetruth 310
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Joe Corrilo 14,553
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 1 hr thetruth 7,398
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 1 hr thetruth 16
News The Consequences of Atheism 1 hr thetruth 1,257
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 1 hr thetruth 147
More from around the web